On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Rama Neko <ramaneko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Copyright claims from museum and libraries mean
absolutely nothing in the
general case. Their websites tend to tag copyright claims on everything and
anything, including public domain work. One should not take it as these
claims have any sort of substance -- nor that they do not: you just can't
tell.
How does Bridgeman vs Corel Art. Library (or a comparable case) holds
up in this discussion? In the US there is a very clear legal precedent
on what to do with photographic reproductions of two-dimensional PD
works, but i'm not sure if that is the same in Canada. It differs per
country, for example, in Germany it is the same as in the US, in the
UK it is completely the opposite and in the Netherlands it's a bit 'in
limbo', so to speak.
Seeing that the majority of pictures are photographs, that is probably
in our advantage because a photograph is a reproduction in itself.
However, there a few drawings in the category.
If that hasn't happened yet, i think it would be very wise to contact
Mike Godwin as well about this case.
-- Hay / Husky